MRA's, Male Privilege, Men's Issues, etc.

Recommended Posts

G's Ah's
371

G's Ah's
371

What would you describe as the most relevant issues that plague men today? the ones I usually hear - male rape not being taken seriously, higher suicide rates, alcoholism, the inequalities of marriage and child custody all stem from old fashioned masculinity. Ideas that propose men should bottle their feelings, be stoic, emotionless, that they're the dominant sex and that getting raped by a woman is a joke, that they're only breadwinner incapable of taking care of the house. All these things have the same common root.

Male rape not being taken serious is an issue when it's acknowledged. There are many places where the legal definition of rape only covers sexual violence committed against women. The other issues that you haven't mentioned include bias in the justice system, whereby men are more likely to be sentenced to prison, given longer sentences and are more likely to remain in prison longer than women are who have been convicted of the same crime, the lack of support for male victims of domestic violence, the fact that men in many countries are subject to conscription or other forms of compulsory military service whereas women are not, the falling educational outcomes of boys and young men, the falling graduation rates of men at universities, etc. There was one other I thought of, but for the life of me I can't remember what it was.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Short Stay
165

Short Stay
165

I'm rather claiming that if you are expecting equal outcomes to ever arise through 'overthrowing the patriarchy' you're beyond delusional. In the prosperous egalitarian countries many differnces in social outcomes between men and women are larger than in developing countries. That is especially true in STEM, as has been pointed out. Russia actually has the highest percentage of women in senior management positions, eventhough it is a rampantly sexist traditionalist culture. That makes no sense at all in the sphere of feminist dogma.

~~~~~~~~~

Women in senior positions in Russia may be a direct hangover from the communist era, where women were encouraged and facilitated to become doctors, engineers, managers, etc. The boys still held on to the top jobs of course.

Side note: Yeah, let's overthrow the patriarchy and....replace it with the big assed matriarchy.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

G's Ah's
371

G's Ah's
371

Side note: Yeah, let's overthrow the patriarchy and....replace it with the big assed matriarchy.

The "matriarchy" isn't so much the end goal because I class it the same as I class patriarchy: non-existent. Rather Western feminism is pushing towards a society where women overall have power and control, but they're limited to the beliefs, concepts and ideas being disseminated by the so-called "radical minority". Power and control doesn't necessarily have to manifest as direct political control. Women vote in greater numbers than men do, and various left-wing parties, politicians and political movements in Western democracies are friendly towards feminism, largely through the misguided belief that Western feminism still advocates for gender equality. Control also comes in the form of social aspects, such as the "Women are wonderful effect", where negative traits are applied to men and positive ones are applied to women. Women easily exploit and control men's sexuality through social pressure and legislation where necessary. Men will quite happily do things they normally would not consider doing if it means getting laid, and women know this. Feminists know this. In addition, in the US specifically (as I don't have figures from other countries, but given social similarities to other Western democracies, we can extrapolate the data), 80% of household finances are controlled by women. With that in mind, it's not surprising that feminists now have an established base from which to launch their final offensive towards the end-game. And all of it relies on men like you and me to be unaware of what's happening and quite happily continue to work hard and pump tax money (which women in the UK often pay at least 60% less than men do) into a system that is slowly eroding your civil liberties and rights.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

DareYokel
5,898

DareYokel
5,898

it's not surprising that feminists now have an established base from which to launch their final offensive towards the end-game. And all of it relies on men like you and me to be unaware of what's happening and quite happily continue to work hard and pump tax money (which women in the UK often pay at least 60% less than men do) into a system that is slowly eroding your civil liberties and rights.

Don't worry. We'll use chemtrails to make feminists jump from the edge of the Earth.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Eutyphro
2,790

Eutyphro
2,790

You're clearly right, but feminism and social justice is a pseudoreligion, so challenging it with reason and facts is only semi-effective. Men aren't really allowed to have an opinion on feminism in mainstream society anyway. And if they do, they'll be shamed as sexually unsuccessful, or as a potential sexual predator, even if both are completely false. These shaming tactics are very effective, and most men are far too afraid to have an opinion on feminism. You'll have to accept that most other men on this board are in this category. Most men pander to women to get laid, and don't have the courage to challenge feminism with reason and truth.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Fonz
3,134

Fonz
3,134

Yes, clearly everybody else is just *afraid* of the truth while brave philosophers like Sargon of Akkad and Jordan Peterson are leading the crusade of enlightenment to fight the SJWs and the sheeple. That's certainly an easier narrative to internalize than to actually question whether what you believe isn't just outrageous drivel that socially competent people have a hard time swallowing due to their experience with, y'know, real people and women in particular, as opposed to snake oil salesmen posing as scientists.

Ah, good ol' G's Ah's... imagine being ignorant enough to class patriarchy as "non-existent" even though the whole concept is laid out in classical Greek philosophy--in explicitly political terms!--written, obviously, by men. I wouldn't be too quick to call Plato a feminist, but then again I've actually spent time trying to de-moronize myself rather than just pull some cheap neckbeard sociology out of my ass. Imagine also being dense to the point where you can't understand that the nominal adoption of feminism by institutional politics is a sign of the elasticity of capitalism and liberal democracy and not in the least a threat to it--much like labor history, the adoption of some of its tenets is a way to contain the radicalization of these struggles at the social level. I guess it's easier to vomit conspiracy theories when your framework is so broad it includes unrelated and even contradictory political forces. I would be interested in hearing about the common ground that indigenous, radical left feminists in Mexico share with, say, Christian Democrats in Europe or Republican feminists (lol) in the US, but I don't expect you to let facts get in the way of a good bullsh*t story. Pro tip: stroking yourself intellectually works better if there is any intellectual baggage to speak of. I recommend a shower and some social interaction.

PS: thank you for this. This forum was lacking in the batsh*t conspiracies department since Rusty Balls was thrown out.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

DareYokel
5,898

DareYokel
5,898

Yes, clearly everybody else is just *afraid* of the truth while brave philosophers like Sargon of Akkad and Jordan Peterson are leading the crusade of enlightenment to fight the SJWs and the sheeple. That's certainly an easier narrative to internalize than to actually question whether what you believe isn't just outrageous drivel that socially competent people have a hard time swallowing due to their experience with, y'know, real people and women in particular, as opposed to snake oil salesmen posing as scientists.

Ah, good ol' G's Ah's... imagine being ignorant enough to class patriarchy as "non-existent" even though the whole concept is laid out in classical Greek philosophy--in explicitly political terms!--written, obviously, by men. I wouldn't be too quick to call Plato a feminist, but then again I've actually spent time trying to de-moronize myself rather than just pull some cheap neckbeard sociology out of my ass. Imagine also being dense to the point where you can't understand that the nominal adoption of feminism by institutional politics is a sign of the elasticity of capitalism and liberal democracy and not in the least a threat to it--much like labor history, the adoption of some of its tenets is a way to contain the radicalization of these struggles at the social level. I guess it's easier to vomit conspiracy theories when your framework is so broad it includes unrelated and even contradictory political forces. I would be interested in hearing about the common ground that indigenous, radical left feminists in Mexico share with, say, Christian Democrats in Europe or Republican feminists (lol) in the US, but I don't expect you to let facts get in the way of a good bullsh*t story. Pro tip: stroking yourself intellectually works better if there is any intellectual baggage to speak of. I recommend a shower and some social interaction.

PS: thank you for this. This forum was lacking in the batsh*t conspiracies department since Rusty Balls was thrown out.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Eutyphro
2,790

Eutyphro
2,790

Yes, clearly everybody else is just *afraid* of the truth while brave philosophers like Sargon of Akkad and Jordan Peterson are leading the crusade of enlightenment to fight the SJWs and the sheeple.

Find me one instance where I've endorsed anything Sargon has said. I personally find Sargon a completely unbearable c*nt. As for Peterson, he is definitely an interesting and consistent thinker. He is also indeed brave for how he put his job on the line to protest Bill c-16. This has spiraled into him having even more personal success ultimately, which in my view he rightly deserves. Challenging SJW insanity and feminist idiocy while being employed at a university is almost by definition brave, because the universities are often rather hijacked by SJWs and professors in the realm of social justice. There are barely any right wing professors at universities in the modern age, hence Jonathan Haidt's heterodox academy project, because political diversity is under pressure.

Quote

That's certainly an easier narrative to internalize than to actually question whether what you believe isn't just outrageous drivel that socially competent people have a hard time swallowing due to their experience with, y'know, real people and women in particular, as opposed to snake oil salesmen posing as scientists.

Because all socially competent prople are actually radfems right? What world do you live in? Most socially competent people are pretty agnostic about feminism and don't really have a view on it. As for JBP being a 'snake oil salesmen posing as scientist', he actually is an accredited clinician and a professor that has published widely. Have you ever looked at the snake oil being sold to young women at universities by feminist charlatans?

Quote

Ah, good ol' G's Ah's... imagine being ignorant enough to class patriarchy as "non-existent" even though the whole concept is laid out in classical Greek philosophy--in explicitly political terms!

Imagine being arrogant enough that this tone is the only way to engage with a view opposed to yours. Maybe get off your f*cking high horse? Furthermore, the concept of 'patriarchy' is not 'set out in Greek philosophy'. When 'patriarchy' is used in its modern meaning, it usually implies some form of conspiracy among men to further the interests of men, and to oppress and cynically harm women. Such an idea of patriarchy indeed doesn't exist, except for maybe in the Islamic world, and is pretty much a delusional conpiracy theory with no basis in reality whatsoever. But many feminists such as Andrea Dworkin are really just batsh*t insane.

Quote

but then again I've actually spent time trying to de-moronize myself

Are you really sure of this? I think you should make another effort.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Fonz
3,134

Fonz
3,134

It's a perfectly suitable, meme-y tone because when we're talking about an underground matriarchal movement to erode the civil liberties of men through some catch-all pact on behalf of opposing political forces or whatever the euphoric turd up there believes, we're in the realm of memes and woo-woo. It's not politics. It's not even coherent internally, which makes all the self-aggrandizing rhetoric about bravely standing up to political correctness all the more hilarious. The aggressive tone in that isn't really aimed at you, but if you've internalized the myth of the lone-standing warrior against the eeebils of the PC social consensus (which doesn't actually exist), that's entirely your problem. Peterson is indeed an accredited clinician, which doesn't negate the fact that he is also a self-help guru for frustrated men on the side, i.e. whenever he dabbles in social theory with his pisspoor non-readings of Western philosophy and his meaningless buzzwords ("postmodern neomarxists"). Personally I'm not impressed by cheap, politicized pop psychiatry and intellectual-sounding catchphrases, but you do you. Sam Harris may be an excellent psychologist for all I know--it doesn't make him less clueless on politics, so I don't know why you feel that bringing up academic pedigree matters. Well, I do know, actually: it's easier to get behind outlandish views when they're spewed by someone with "academic legitimacy".

I didn't say every socially healthy person was a radfem (I don't even know why you brought up radfems in the first place, but whatever). I said that socially competent people laugh at the idea that a major (presumably transcontinental) conspiracy aimed at erasing men's civil liberties existed. And the idea of patriarchy means nothing even similar to what you described, so I don't know whether you're dishonest or, worse, you actually believe this. The concept is indeed laid out in Greek literature, and the 'modern' concept of patriarchy (might want to check the etymology for the word as well) is a critical examination of the condition of women throughout history. The explanation for it has nothing to do with male conspiracies or any crap like that and everything to do with the direction that the productive activities of humanity have taken over time and the political relations that grew on that basis. But you won't get that from a Peterson AmA because it's easier to push bullsh*t stories about the feminist cabal when you pretend not to understand what the core tenets of feminism are--incidentally that's also how Peterson constructs most of the social commentary that you find so interesting. Saying "but men are also affected by X" isn't a critique of feminism; for about a century now (maybe even more, I don't know) feminist theory has recognized and included this in its critique. At least find something that isn't a 100-year-old strawman.

Edited July 23, 2018 by Fonz

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Eutyphro
2,790

Eutyphro
2,790

It's a perfectly suitable, meme-y tone because when we're talking about an underground matriarchal movement to erode the civil liberties of men through some catch-all pact on behalf of opposing political forces or whatever the turd above us believes, we're in the realm of memes and woo-woo.

Except, no one was arguing for such a strawman position? G's A's opposed the idea that we are moving towards matriarchy. As far as I understood him he argued we are moving toward a female centric society though, and really, maybe he is right? I'm not all too sure he is wrong. We see women increasingly succeeding in society and men falling behind, especially in academia. And we still constantly see women being less successful than men being cherry picked to push for women being equally successful or more successful in every domain, through affirmative action. He's also right that though men make more money, women spend more. Why are most commercials aimed at women ya think? And the mainstream media does really favor women, and feminine characteristics, over masculine ones in my experience. What mainly interests me is what the institutional and economic material forces causing this are. You yourself admitted that capitalism has incorporated feminism, and that it is able to do this. I think that's true. Maybe women are more susceptible to the manipulation of identity through commercialism? Why not have an open discussion about it in stead of being snidey c*nts on a high horse showing off with intellect?

Quote

but if you've internalized the myth of the lone-standing warrior against the eeebils of the PC social consensus (which doesn't actually exist)

It does exist. It's pretty much the new mainstream morality being pushed on the masses in order to tame them. And challenging it does get you in trouble. The mainstream media who push this morality will go on a witch hunt against you if you challenge it in the slightest, and intimidates everyone doing so by attempting to destroy their careers. Hence why most people don't dare speak on a lot of important social themes. There's a mainstream orthodoxy that can't ever be challenged, or they'll attempt to utterly ruin you.

Quote

Peterson is indeed an accredited clinician, which doesn't negate the fact that he is also a self-help guru for frustrated men on the side, i.e. whenever he dabbles in social theory with his pisspoor non-readings of Western philosophy and his meaningless bu zzwords ("postmodern neomarxists").

Peterson is not right about everything, and he has his weak spots. But which intellectual isn't full of sh*t on some things really? Peterson is well read in his domain of expertise, psychology, and through this expertise he has valuable, consistently thought out ideas, that add to the debates that are currently important. He is not that well read as a philosopher, but he has never pretended to be a philosopher as far as I'm aware. Some of the things he says about Foucault and Derrida are also pretty much true.

Don't you think much of interesting speculative philosophy can be considered exactly this?

Quote

so I don't know why you feel that bringing up academic pedigree matters.

Maybe because you said he was 'posing' as a scientist, when he actually is a scientist?

Quote

and the 'modern' concept of patriarchy (might want to check the etymology for the word as well) is a critical examination of the condition of women throughout history.

Which, de facto, amounts to the sense I gave to patriarchy, "a conspiracy among men to further the interests of men, and to oppress and cynically harm women". Because that is how dimwitted naive idiots will judge the history of male power if they look at it through a lense of current modern progressive social and moral norms. This idiotic view of history is a really significant problem.

Quote

when you pretend not to understand what the core tenets of feminism are

Well, what are the core intellectual tenets of feminist philosophy? Probably, Marx, Engels The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State, Derrida, Foucault, and French modern philosophy in general, and readings of Freud, right? Something along those lines.

Quote

Saying "but men are also affected by X" isn't a critique of feminism; for about a century now (maybe even more, I don't know) feminist theory has recognized and included this in its critique.

Well, we know the age old 'patriarchy hurts men too' nonsense. But the view that men can save themselves from patriarchy by abolishing masculine virtues and hierarchies is stupid, delusional, and that any man could support this line of reasoning is frankly sad. Surely there is toxic masculinity (there is toxic femininity as well), but you don't combat it by trying to socialize men as women. We're seeing the effects of male virtues eroding on society, and in my country one of the effects is that men are killing themselves at increasing numbers. The suicide number has risen in the Netherlands at a pretty alarming rate, because men have no f*cking clue how to be men anymore, and because society doesn't really care if they miserably fail in life and kill themselves.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

G's Ah's
371

G's Ah's
371

Yes, clearly everybody else is just *afraid* of the truth while brave philosophers like Sargon of Akkad and Jordan Peterson are leading the crusade of enlightenment to fight the SJWs and the sheeple.

Sargon of Akkad and Jordan Peterson aren't leading the crusade of enlightenment, they're the stupid man's intellectuals. They're useful as a source of entertainment, but the fact of the matter is that they're still traditionalist conservatives, and as far as I am concerned, them and feminists are two different sides of the same coin. Traditionalist conservatives and feminists often agree on things like the abolition of pornography and prostitution and the continued perpetuation of traditional gender stereotypes for men.

Quote

That's certainly an easier narrative to internalize than to actually question whether what you believe isn't just outrageous drivel that socially competent people have a hard time swallowing due to their experience with, y'know, real people and women in particular, as opposed to snake oil salesmen posing as scientists.

This is certainly a typical, but nonetheless, interesting response. What a lot of people, men and women, who disagree with those who disagree or are against Western feminism, often resort to as an automatic tactic is the discrediting of the person who is making the argument, not the actual argument being presented. I certainly can't presume to explain why social policing and social shaming are the go-to responses to arguments made by people like myself or others, but it's certainly food for thought.

Certainly I don't believe anything that Sargon of Akkad or Jordan Peterson says about equality of the sexes or most other social issues, primarily because I disagree with traditionalist and conservative beliefs about society, and especially about the roles of men in said society. In addition I don't take anything Jordan Peterson says seriously purely because his views are entirely his own, and he uses his clinical experiences as a method of making said views more legitimate. Something which I find rather disingenuous.

Quote

Ah, good ol' G's Ah's... imagine being ignorant enough to class patriarchy as "non-existent" even though the whole concept is laid out in classical Greek philosophy--in explicitly political terms!--written, obviously, by men.

And that is what it still remains. And while there have been patriarchal elements in societies and oppression, claiming that all men lived privilege lives in the past and all women were oppressed lacks the nuance from which accurate historical observations on prior societies can be made. It also ignores societal evolution and it's current usage ignores the rights and social privileges, as well as benevolent sexism, that women exclusively enjoy.

Quote

I wouldn't be too quick to call Plato a feminist, but then again I've actually spent time trying to de-moronize myself rather than just pull some cheap neckbeard sociology out of my ass. Imagine also being dense to the point where you can't understand that the nominal adoption of feminism by institutional politics is a sign of the elasticity of capitalism and liberal democracy and not in the least a threat to it--much like labor history, the adoption of some of its tenets is a way to contain the radicalization of these struggles at the social level.

Rather amusing insults and a lack of actual nuanced arguments aside, I'd like to further discuss the adoption of feminism by institutional politics. For one I agree that it is a component of the elasticity of capitalism and liberal democracy (as well as most other political ideologies that exist to create an equal and fair society), but I disagree that adopting feminist ideals was a way to contain the radicals. I do not believe that the suffragist movement in the 19th and early 20th centuries contained any kind of radicals outside of the temperance movement, and even then, their views were largely limited to substance abuse and not directly related to the equality of the sexes. Rather I believe that the radicalism that exists today, and it's control of Western feminism, is a byproduct of the initial adoption of feminist tenets. It was a proverbial foot in the door that allowed for more radical beliefs and ideas to develop.

Quote

I guess it's easier to vomit conspiracy theories when your framework is so broad it includes unrelated and even contradictory political forces. I would be interested in hearing about the common ground that indigenous, radical left feminists in Mexico share with, say, Christian Democrats in Europe or Republican feminists (lol) in the US, but I don't expect you to let facts get in the way of a good bullsh*t story.

They all have one thing in common: the desire for power and control over men. As I said earlier, feminists and conservatives can often agree on issues like prostitution and pornography because of the agreement that they are, fundamentally, bad for society. Arguing in favour of idea that the differences in beliefs are little more than ideological trappings ignore the fundamental similarities and biological desires from which movements like these germinate. They may have different views on other social issues, or even how to maintain influence and control over men, but the fact remains that they all share the same basic desire for that influence and control.

Quote

Pro tip: stroking yourself intellectually works better if there is any intellectual baggage to speak of. I recommend a shower and some social interaction.

I'm enjoying these insults here. Keep it up!

Quote

PS: thank you for this. This forum was lacking in the batsh*t conspiracies department since Rusty Balls was thrown out.

And thank you for proving me right.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

G's Ah's
371

G's Ah's
371

It's a perfectly suitable, meme-y tone because when we're talking about an underground matriarchal movement to erode the civil liberties of men through some catch-all pact on behalf of opposing political forces or whatever the euphoric turd up there believes, we're in the realm of memes and woo-woo.﻿

I don't believe it's underground. I believe it's in plain view for everyone to see. Whether or not people want to acknowledge it is up to them. I can't make people change their fundamental beliefs of feminism and women.

Quote

I didn't s﻿ay every socially healthy person was a radfem (I don't even know why you brought up radfems in the first place, but whatever). I said that socially competent people laugh at the idea that a major (presumably transcontinental) conspiracy aimed at erasing men's civil liberties existed.

It's not a conspiracy. Such a term would imply that there is a cohesive plan that exists and that every single feminist was in on it. Such a thing, as you would agree, is ridiculous. The reality is, modern technology, and especially communications, has allowed for such views to gain greater audiences and spread out throughout the Western world. And platforms such as blogs, social media sites, Youtube, etc. have allowed for the proliferation of ideas, concepts and beliefs that people can freely chose to reject or adopt. In addition, the emergence of radical feminists in academia and the prevalence of gender studies classes are also part of this. The long held ideal of equality that we all continue to believe is prevalent among all feminists is no longer present within the movement in the West, thanks to the effective silencing (self imposed or otherwise) of liberal feminists and the adoption of misandry by the new, radicalised mainstream. Concepts such as "rape culture", "manspreading", "mansplaining", and "male privilege" have entered the feminist lexicon only recently, within the last 10-20 years. And such concepts reflect a profound shift in the goals of the Western feminist movement.

Quote

The concept is indeed laid out in Greek literature, and the 'modern' concept of patriarchy (might want to check the etymology for the word as well) is a critical examination of the condition of women throughout history.

It isn't a critical examination at all, because it lacks any kind of context or nuance. It is nothing more than a modern interpretation of how Western feminists want to interpret history. In a sense, interpreting the historical condition of women as nothing more than universal oppression is nothing more than an attempt at historical revisionism.

Quote

The explanation for it has nothing to do with male conspiracies or any crap like that and everything to do with the direction that the productive activities of humanity have taken over time and the political relations that grew on that basis.

The principal flaw in this interpretation of the historical condition of women is that it presumes the existence of universal oppression. It lacks the acknowledgement of how societies were structured, the basis for beliefs of the status of women, and the way in which societies evolved. It also portrays feminists in a more positive light, because framing history as nothing more than absolute darkness until feminists and suffragists shined a light on all of womenkind and brought them out from the darkness is a perfect example of the kind of self-aggrandising that you openly accuse me of. Ironically it's a reflection of the social belief that positively portrays women's influence over men in the form of the proverbial "woman's touch".

Quote

Saying "but men are also affected by X" isn't a critique of feminism; for about a century now (maybe even more, I don't know) feminist theory has recognized and included this in its critique.

Western feminism has made absolutely no attempt to consider or address men's issues beyond lip service. There's an inherent lack of sincerity when Western feminists discuss male issues, often simply being relegated as footnotes in an attempt to stave off growing criticism for not living up to the standard they portray themselves as upholding.

8 hours ago, Eutyphro said:

G's A's opposed the idea that we are moving towards matriarchy. As far as I understood him he argued we are moving toward a female centric society though, and really, maybe he is right?

This is correct.

Edited July 24, 2018 by G's Ah's

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Clem Fandango
4,826

Clem Fandango
4,826

thanks to the effective silencing (self imposed or otherwise) of liberal feminists and the adoption of misandry by the new, radicalised mainstream. Concepts such as "rape culture", "manspreading", "mansplaining", and "male privilege" have entered the feminist lexicon only recently, within the last 10-20 years. And such concepts reflect a profound shift in the goals of the Western feminist movement.

Those terms you mentioned are all- with the exception of rape culture which is an old sociological term that didn't originate in feminism- liberal feminist concepts. 'Manspreading' and 'mansplaining' don't even rise to the level of politics, because they're just online colloquialisms. 'Male privilege' came about in the 1980s after liberal feminists emerged as the victors of the Feminist Sex Wars. It's the exact opposite of what you think: liberal feminism is the mainstream (third-wave feminism) and represents a break with the radical feminism of the 1970s. Non-Western feminism- for the record- is generally more aligned with second-wave, radical feminism.

It's funny that you don't know such basic facts about feminism but still write paragraph after paragraph on the subject.

4 hours ago, G's Ah's said:

It﻿ isn't a critical examination at all, because it lacks any kind of context or nuance. It is nothing more than a modern interpretation of how Western feminists want to interpret history. In a sense, interpreting the historical condition of women as nothing more than universal oppression is nothing more than an attempt at historical revisionism. [...] The principal flaw in this interpretation of the historical condition of women is that it presumes the existence of universal oppression. It lacks the acknowledgement of how societies were structured, the basis for beliefs of the status of women, and the way in which societies evolved.

Did you ever think that maybe you're just ignorant of the context and nuance, like you're ignorant of everything concerning feminism? Patriarchy isn't understood as encompassing all of human history, rather it's understood as encompassing the past 6000-11,000 years. You don't seem to understand what 'oppression' means in this context either. It doesn't mean that women have been constantly treated like sh*t, it means that women have been exploited in an economic relationship with men. It doesn't mean that men live on easy streak. Patriarchy is also generally understood as a development which allowed for agriculture, centralised power, massive population growth and standing armies. I don't know where you got the impression that it ignores the evolution of human societies, it's understood as part of that evolution. It definitely doesn't ignore the structural basis for women's oppression: understanding that is the whole point of feminist historical analysis!

5 hours ago, G's Ah's said:

I certainly can't presume to explain why social policing and social shaming are the go-to responses to arguments made by people like myself or others, but it's certainly food for thought.

It's actually because you sound genuinely ridiculous.

14 hours ago, Eutyphro said:

Why not have an open discussion about it in stead of being snidey c*nts on a high horse showing off with intellect?

Mostly because if you actually gave a sh*t about the facts and weren't just a bitter misogynist you would've relented years ago.

14 hours ago, Eutyphro said:

Well, what are the core intellectual tenets of feminist philosophy? Probably, Marx, Engels The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State, Derrida, Foucault, and French modern philosophy in general, and readings of Freud, right? Something along those lines.

This is entirely wrong. Like, would you let up with this? You have no idea what you're talking about. I don't know what makes you think you're capable of explaining all of these things. Actually I do know, it's because you're copying Peterson, who you go to great lengths to pretend you don't worship.

This is tiring and sad.

14 hours ago, Eutyphro said:

Which, de facto, amounts to the sense I gave to patriarchy, "a conspiracy among men to further the interests of men, and to oppress and cynically harm women"﻿.

No it doesn't. Patriarchy as a term of economic analysis has been explained to you countless times.

14 hours ago, Eutyphro said:

Because that is how dimwitted naive idiots will judge the history of male power if they look at it through a lense of current modern progressive social and moral norms. This idiotic view of history is a really significant problem.

Yeah the proper way to view the history of male power is to remember that women are chaotic dragons that must be dominated by a strong, ordered will.

18 hours ago, Eutyphro said:

You'll have to accept that most other men on this board are in this category. Most men pander to women to get laid, and don't have the courage to challenge feminism with reason and truth.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

G's Ah's
371

G's Ah's
371

Those terms you mentioned are all- with the exception of rape culture which is an old sociological term that didn't originate in feminism- liberal feminist concepts. 'Manspreading' and 'mansplaining' don't even rise to the level of politics, because they're just online colloquialisms.

Considering that some public transport companies have actually taken the concept of "manspreading" seriously to the point where it is now official policy for men to not...erm..."spread", while it isn't political, it is beyond the realm of internet colloquialism.

Quote

It's the exact opposite of what you think: liberal feminism is the mainstream (third-wave feminism) and represents a break with the radical feminism of the 1970s. Non-Western feminism- for the record- is generally more aligned with second-wave, radical feminism.

Except this is not true at all. Liberal feminism and liberal feminists were the ones that originally fought for the right to vote and other political and social rights for women, believing that equality would come through social and legal reform. Radical feminism developed from liberal feminism, especially with the emergence of black feminists and "postcolonial feminists" who believe liberal feminism is dominated, and exists to serve the interests of, white heterosexual women. Radical feminism did break from liberal feminism, but has grown exponentially since said break, whereas liberal feminism, largely having achieved its goals of social and political reform, has stagnated. It has essentially been silent in regards to the radicalisation of the mainstream.

Quote

It's funny that you don't know such basic facts about feminism but still write paragraph after paragraph on the subject﻿. ﻿

Considering you've tried to tell me that the moderates are radicals and the radicals are moderates, that's not exactly demonstrating a knowledge of the subject at hand. At the very least it's an attempt to twist history to suit your own particular beliefs.

Quote

Did you ever think that maybe you're just ignorant of the context and nuance, like you're ignorant of everything concerning feminism?

One cannot be ignorant of there is no context or nuance to speak of. Portraying the history of women as one singular absolute isn't a critical analysis, it's an attempt to justify current attitudes towards men and justify the claims that women need to be in control of society through being put into positions of power in order to obtain historical redress. And once again, need I remind you that I am not the one pretending that it's opposite day. Radicals are not moderates and moderates are not radicals.

Quote

Patriarchy isn't understood as encompassing all of human history, rather it's understood as encompassing the past 6000-11,000 years.

Conveniently from the development of agriculture, where men's physical strength was necessary and men could acquire wealth and profit from the labour of others. Again, this is revisionism, because you are attempting to frame history through the context of whatever ideology you hold (if you do so) and frame it as historical fact. This is what I am getting at when I refer to a lack of nuance and context, because creating absolutes and portraying them as being accurate depictions of history is wrong at best and intentionally disingenuous at most.

Quote

You don't seem to understand what 'oppression' means in this context either. It doesn't mean that women have been constantly treated like sh*t, it means that women have been exploited in an economic relationship with men.

I know what oppression means. It is not a word that one can simply change the definition of to suit their meaning. And in the context of history and society, then both men and women were historically oppressed, especially when you consider economic relationships. Arguing otherwise would be justifying the historical revisionism radical feminism is guilty of doing, and what you have attempted to do in your response to my posts. Furthermore, would you not agree that women's control over household finances does not constitute oppression, especially given women are not reliant on men as they once were?

Quote

It doesn't mean that men live on easy streak.

One cannot really attribute everything negative in society to patriarchy, as it's definition as a system that exists that benefits men. Of course I am not surprised that people try to keep the definition vague.

Quote

Patriarchy is also generally understood as a development which allowed for agriculture, centralised power, massive population growth and standing armies.

Patriarchy means all things to all people. Defining it as an enabler of the aspects of civilisation as you have described it ignores that very problem. Furthermore, if patriarchy, going by it's objective definition as a system that benefits men, then the emergence of centralised power and standing armies, especially when we consider the historical methods in which armies were raised and maintained, did not benefit all men.

Going back to patriarchy enabling the development of agriculture, centralised power, etc., one has to ask if the progression of humanity in terms of developing trappings such as those outlined and male control of power, influence and wealth is a logical (or "natural") progression for humanity to take, given that men provide the most suitable labour force for which said wealth can be acquired?

Quote

I don't know where you got the impression that it ignores the evo﻿lution of human societies, it's understood as part of that evolution. It definitely doesn't ignore the structural basis for women's oppression: understanding that is the whole point of feminist historical analysis!

The portrayal of the history of women specifically is often portrayed as nothing but oppression until feminism arose.

Quote

It's actually because you﻿ sound genuinely ridicu﻿lou﻿s﻿.﻿

It is only ridiculous if you approach it from the viewpoint where you believe that women are genuinely disadvantaged or that women are still oppressed in Western society.

Quote

Jesus f*cking Christ.

He is, more or less, correct in his assessment. Men are willing to do almost anything as long as biological imperatives are met. It is reductionist to the point of portraying men and women as slaves to their hormones and biological desires, but we are still animals after all.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Eutyphro
2,790

Eutyphro
2,790

Mostly because if you actually gave a sh*t about the facts and weren't just a bitter misogynist you would've relented years ago.

This is entirely wrong. Like, would you let up with this? You have no idea what you're talking about. I don't know what makes you think you're capable of explaining all of these things. Actually I do know, it's because you're copying Peterson, who you go to great lengths to pretend you don't worship.

This is tiring and sad.

No it doesn't. Patriarchy as a term of economic analysis has been explained to you countless times.

Yeah the proper way to view the history of male power is to remember that women are chaotic dragons that must be dominated by a strong, ordered will.

Jesus f*cking Christ.

I would've liked to respond with something, but I pretty much see 0 substance here. It's 100% insults, misplaced arrogance, and ridiculous strawmen. It's kind of boring how you hide your stupidity and inability to win a discussion in a normal way behind a shield of being a disingenuous and snidey c*nt.

I also think Fonz is in the same basket. He drops by and throws a bunch of insults off his high horse and then moves on to lurking again. This discussion will never go anywhere if all of you are too disingenuous and cowardly to actually have it. None of you seem very convinced about your ability to coherently argue for your own position I think.

Edited July 24, 2018 by Eutyphro

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

DareYokel
5,898

DareYokel
5,898

My theory is that well adjusted adults simply aren't interested in wasting time and effort that it would take to discuss something so moronic with a bunch of conspiracy theorists who's intellectual capacity doesn't extend beyond a self-help charlatan.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

DareYokel
5,898

DareYokel
5,898

I don't blame you for lack of a better contribution, because clearly you're not competent to make one.

I already told you why. Are you really that dense, or are you one of those people who just have to have the last word in a conversation to feel like you've accomplished something? Go ahead, respond. It's my gift to you. Or pretend that you don't need to. That will prove me wrong lol.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Raavi
22,164

Raavi
22,164

As a point of moderation. This section is not just for discussions that fit within the mainstream or are popular. With very few exceptions anything, any point of view as long as you can word it coherently (and don't jump ship when faced with counterarguments) is fair game. If the topic isn't to your liking, or for whatever reason you're not capable of responding in a measured fashion - don't reply. If you do choose to enter the debate keep it on-topic, attack the position and not the person behind it regardless of your personal feelings.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Eutyphro
2,790

Eutyphro
2,790

Mostly because if you actually gave a sh*t about the facts and weren't just a bitter misogynist you would've relented years ago.

In my other comment I posted there was zero content in what was posted, and that was pretty much true. But on this point specifically, if we look past the insult (I could call you a vile bitter cúck but it gets us nowhere), I kind of keep wondering, what facts? Isn't it clear to you that you've provided absolutely zero facts thoughout all the time we've debated this issue? 0% of your position on this topic is based on facts. Your entire position is religious. You've even called yourself an 'orthodox feminist'. It's your personal faith pretty much. And if anyone questions it you lash out with insult ridden rants. Maybe actually questioning your own beliefs would give you a neurosis and I should cut you some slack though. But the question remains, what facts? You have throughout the long time that we've been talking about this issue not provided any at all.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Fonz
3,134

Fonz
3,134

Well, the real reason for my delay is much less interesting and not quite as favorable to your ego stroking, brave one: I'm afraid I was just without a computer and quoting things on mobile to respond is a pain in the ass. Anyway, back on track:

On 7/23/2018 at 6:02 PM, Eutyphro said:

It does exist. It's pretty much the new mainstream morality being pushed on the masses in order to tame them. And challenging it does get you in trouble. The mainstream media who push this morality will go on a witch hunt against you if you challenge it in the slightest, and intimidates everyone doing so by attempting to destroy their careers. Hence why most people don't dare speak on a lot of important social themes. There's a mainstream orthodoxy that can't ever be challenged, or they'll attempt to utterly ruin you.

Interesting that you see some intricate machination of the PC monster here rather than just people calling out things they feel are wrong and should be fought. There's nothing new about this: this persecution complex has been part of right-wing schtick for decades. Many things get you in trouble, but that's usually because they are offensive or plain stupid in some way, not because they're such a bomb of intellectuality that the sheeple aren't capable or courageous enough to understand. This idea also falls apart when you consider the backlash that people have received for espousing so-called PC points of view.

On 7/23/2018 at 6:02 PM, Eutyphro said:

Peterson is not right about everything, and he has his weak spots. But which intellectual isn't full of sh*t on some things really? Peterson is well read in his domain of expertise, psychology, and through this expertise he has valuable, consistently thought out ideas, that add to the debates that are currently important. He is not that well read as a philosopher, but he has never pretended to be a philosopher as far as I'm aware. Some of the things he says about Foucault and Derrida are also pretty much true.

I'm struggling to think of any, but whatever. Pathologizing your political opponents doesn't actually count as debate. It counts as being a disingenous fraud who prostitutes his profession and trivializes mental illnesss in order to score some zingers for dimwits on his reddit page to applaud.

On 7/23/2018 at 6:02 PM, Eutyphro said:

Don't you think much of interesting speculative philosophy can be considered exactly this?

Eh, possibly. There's some of that in Foucault for sure--the whiff of politicized psychyatry--, but it's generally well framed and his sloppier element is definitely history. Freud would be another example, but it's anachronistic to describe his stuff as pop psychiatry because the scientific development of the discipline just wasn't there yet. It's definitely in the service of a specific narrative, though.

On 7/23/2018 at 6:02 PM, Eutyphro said:

Which, de facto, amounts to the sense I gave to patriarchy, "a conspiracy among men to further the interests of men, and to oppress and cynically harm women". Because that is how dimwitted naive idiots will judge the history of male power if they look at it through a lense of current modern progressive social and moral norms. This idiotic view of history is a really significant problem.

Yeah, except it doesn't. Saying 'things developed a certain way socially because economic development took this direction" is pretty unrelated to "a conspiracy among men to further the interests of men". No, there was never an international meeting of men where they sat at a table deciding how to lead world history in a way that would to oppress women, and there's no such idea anywhere within feminist theory. From this your lack of engagement with feminist theory just becomes very, very obvious. What's a significant problem is people filling in the blanks with crap things this when they don't know what they're talking about. "A system that benefits men" is also not a proper definition of patriarchy, though you've been pushing it for some 2 years now and ignoring everyone when you're shown wrong. Social development doesn't take place in isolation. It grows alongside political relations, classes and stratification. Whether or not they'll actually benefit on the whole is conditioned by this. Similarly, what the idiots who argue that sometimes women are benefitted through white-knighting or whatever don't see is that they're making a point against themselves--unsolicited 'help', particularly of this kind, is called infantilization and paternalism. Paternalism as in patriarchy. This is essentially people admitting that female agency is indeed reduced and that women are instrumentalized. You can't very well claim that patriarchy doesn't exist whilst unwittingly mentioning one of its most obvious dynamics.

On 7/23/2018 at 6:02 PM, Eutyphro said:

Well, what are the core intellectual tenets of feminist philosophy? Probably, Marx, Engels The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State, Derrida, Foucault, and French modern philosophy in general, and readings of Freud, right? Something along those lines.

Wow. Uh, no. Aside from the fact that you've managed not to cite a single woman on feminist theory, which is funny in itself, out of the names you cited, only two--which form the same body of work--actually have made significant contributions to feminist theory. Unsurprising, but still revealing. If you notice, much of the discussion in here follows a pattern where you make some grand claim about feminist theory, get corrected on it and then reply that that correction clashes with the feminist reading of this, that and the other thing. Rinse and repeat. It's hard to take that seriously when you continouly reveal your unfamiliarity with feminist theory beyond memes.

On 7/23/2018 at 6:02 PM, Eutyphro said:

Well, we know the age old 'patriarchy hurts men too' nonsense. But the view that men can save themselves from patriarchy by abolishing masculine virtues and hierarchies is stupid, delusional, and that any man could support this line of reasoning is frankly sad. Surely there is toxic masculinity (there is toxic femininity as well), but you don't combat it by trying to socialize men as women. We're seeing the effects of male virtues eroding on society, and in my country one of the effects is that men are killing themselves at increasing numbers. The suicide number has risen in the Netherlands at a pretty alarming rate, because men have no f*cking clue how to be men anymore, and because society doesn't really care if they miserably fail in life and kill themselves.

It's not nonsense, it's pretty common sense. The only reason you call it nonsense is that takes apart the major point put forward by anti-feminists and explains it within the existing framework. It's called nuance and you're obviously hostile to it because it tends to complicate matters somewhat and the shaky foundations of your whole position become much more obvious. As for the toxic masculinity thing, all I can say is it's more of the same. The concept has been explained to you many times--in fact it ties in with what I've just said--but you still choose to ignore it, so there's not much anyone can do. Socializing men as women or whatever is an invention of your own so there's likewise not much to argue there. By the way, keeping it classy by instrumentalizing the deaths of people to push some edgy brociology, man. Good look. I should say your obsession with 'being a man', besides being absolutely pathetic, is quite revealing.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Eutyphro
2,790

Eutyphro
2,790

Interesting that you see some intricate machination of the PC monster here rather than just people calling out things they feel are wrong and should be fought. There's nothing new about this: this persecution complex has been part of right-wing schtick for decades. Many things get you in trouble, but that's usually because they are offensive or plain stupid in some way, not because they're such a bomb of intellectuality that the sheeple aren't capable or courageous enough to understand. This idea also falls apart when you consider the backlash that people have received for espousing so-called PC points of view.

Well, we seemed to disagree on the Papa John case, where supposedly you thought 'context and intent doesn't matter'. And saying Nïgger is like saying Voldemort pretty much. Another case I could mention is how an actor recently had to apologize at length (and did so) because he said the #MeToo atmosphere might make men more hesitant to flirt. That's such a mild comment. But imagine someone with such a public profile would actually have criticism of #MeToo that they'd want to air? It's forbidden and you have to follow the progressive orthodoxy, or your career will be ruined by hysterical liberal mobs, probably starting on Twitter. We see cases like this every week. Another case was where recently an actor complimented Ben Shapiro, and said he liked to listen to Ben Shapiro, and the twitter mobs went out with full force and he had to state a lengthy apology. We see this happen every week, and social media and mainstream media liberal hysteria is stifling any common sense conversation about important social topics. The fact that I see it all the time, though I'm a person who gets sick of futile outrage hoaxes quite quickly, and isn't interested in them, means it is pretty much a continual stream of such hoaxes at the moment.

PC culture is in its most extreme form in the English speaking world. In continental Europe I don't think it's as bad. In France prominent women actually spoke out against #MeToo as being too hysterical. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-42643504

Which he never does. There are some articles pathologizing safe space snowflake ideology, but they are pretty spot on and reasonable, and not by Jordan Peterson, but by Jonathan Haidt among others.

Quote

Yeah, except it doesn't. Saying 'things developed a certain way socially because economic development took this direction" is pretty unrelated to "a conspiracy among men to further the interests of men". No, there was never an international meeting of men where they sat at a table deciding how to lead world history in a way that would to oppress women, and there's no such idea anywhere within feminist theory.

I've rarely seen feminists proclaim such an economic realism. If they did, I'd fully support their line of reasoning. There is not a New World order conspiracy within feminist theory as far as I know of, but that is not what I claimed. The closest thing to a concrete conspiracy I have heard feminists talk about is when they talk about the 'old boys network'. But more generally the patriarchy is a conspiracy where men have a tendency to conspire to protect each others interests, and to oppress and harm women. The idea of patriarchy as it is utilized in feminist theory can be considered a paranoid delusion. As I and G's A's pointed out, it usually goes along with a view of history where women were nothing but oppressed to privilege men, eventhough in reality most men had it as hard as most women throughout history, and an increasing escape from harsh poverty for the largest part of society has only been established since the industrial revolution.

Quote

Similarly, what the idiots who argue that sometimes women are benefitted through white-knighting or whatever don't see is that they're making a point against themselves--unsolicited 'help', particularly of this kind, is called infanti lization and paternalism. Paternalism as in patriarchy. This is essentially people admitting that female agency is indeed reduced and that women are instrumentalized. You can't very well claim that patriarchy doesn't exist whilst unwittingly mentioning one of its most obvious dynamics.

I wouldn't deny forms of patriarchy exist, and likely have always existed. I'd disagree with the part that patriarchy has been instituted purposefully with the intent to oppress women and put power in the hands of men. Under patriarchy men can attain more success and status than women can, but simultaneously men fail harder and receive less protection and sympathy when they do so. Men receive higher rewards, but the group of men that actually receive high rewards is a minority, and the group of men that utterly fail in society is much larger than the group of women that do so. Furthermore, an aspect of this paternalism is that high status men generally put more effort into looking after the interests of women in general than those of men in general. Because men generally have a relation of competition towards one another, whereas society has a stronger tendency towards solidarity with women than with men.

Quote

Aside from the fact that you've managed not to cite a single woman on feminist theory, which is funny in itself,

Saying this will likely trigger you, but I think feminist philosophers stole almost all of their ideas from white male (or jewish) predecessors. This is largely the case because throughout history only men were allowed to pursue abstract questions, but I do think it is pretty much the case.

Quote

out of the names you cited, only two--which form the same body of work--ac tually have made significant contributions to feminist theory.

Almost none of them have written feminist theory themselves, but feminist theory is largely based on their ideas. De Beauvoirs philosophy also originated from Sartre, a white man.

I've read some feminist theory, really. Not a lot, but not little either. Probably more than at least 80% of people that posted in this topic. But it is hard to spend large amounts of time reading something based on what I consider false premises.

Quote

Socializing men as women or whatever is an invention of your own so there's likewise not much to argue there.

It's not. Many feminists, Gloria Steinem for intance, idealize women, and consider boys to be defected girls, that need to be socialized as girls to get rid of their 'toxic masculinity'. Feminism pathologizes normal masculine behavior. And the corpus on 'toxic masculinity' sometimes does exactly that. Ask a feminist whether there is also 'toxic femininity' and see what response you get, and it'll completely confirm this argument. Even if not explicit, feminism is almost always premised on feminine superiority.

Quote

I should say your obsession with 'being a man', besides being absolutely pathetic, is quite revealing.

I don't have a large 'obsession with being a man'. I don't even consider myself to be extremely masculine or anything. But I do think men are different than women, even if to think such a thing is heresy in the church of progressivism these days.

As for Yokels question whether I lift, I do.

Edited July 25, 2018 by EutyphroAnswering Yokels question which has since been removed

Share on other sites

DareYokel
5,898

DareYokel
5,898

Which is bullsh*t. The topic is about Male Privilege, Men's Issues etc. Lifting is manly and it falls under etc. In my humble opinion.

To be perfectly honest, I can't actually take this topic seriously and I can't take Jordan Peterson seriously. The guy is a either a charlatan or he's demented. He's so full of himself he thinks he can make up definitions that make no sense whatsoever in order to justify his insane worldview. His fans seem to think that he's exceptionally smart, yet he's incapable of comprehending a very simple legal text that resulted in his eventual fame among the alt-right. And that's the so-called authority on this and other related subjects. Good lord.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

sivispacem
19,024

sivispacem
19,024

Well, we seemed to disagree on the Papa John case, where supposedly you thought 'context and intent doesn't matter'

I'm still totally lost on this one, especially given we know the broad context at this point- an internal business event involving a senior representative of a large public company..

Can you give an example of when a company figurehead saying "n*gger" might be contextually acceptable at an official business event? Because I sure as sh*t can't think of one.

3 hours ago, Eutyphro said:

But imagine someone with such a public profile would actually have criticism of #MeToo that they'd want to air? It's forbidden and you have to follow the progressive orthodoxy, or your career will be ruined by hysterical liberal mobs

I'm not sure this really rings true, given that a variety of public figures ranging from Margaret Atwood to Tony Robbins have expressed misgivings about the movement without having their "careers ruined".

This isn't to say their statements on the subject haven't been subject to significant criticism; but guess what? That's a fact of life, particularly for a public figure and especially when making the entirely voluntary decision to wade in on a controversial subject.

The same is true, to a greater extent or lesser, of a wide variety of opinions contrary to logic, rationality, common sense and public decency; the volume at which cultural subgroups are able to shout on social media doesn't count for very much and misogynist harassment of of public figures is every bit as commonplace; you just choose to ignore it because it doesn't support your narrative. Turns out, people on the internet generally behave like pricks.

Regardless, vague allusions to cherry-picked examples entirely devoid of context does not a coherent argument make- and nor does using the Twittersphere as a coherent barometer of mainstream public opinion.

3 hours ago, Eutyphro said:

The closest thing to a concrete conspiracy I have heard feminists talk about is when they talk about the 'old boys network'

It doesn't take much scraping at the surface to reveal that this is a fundamental truth in many industry sectors like the media, finance and legal/professional services.At a certain level, by which I primarily mean C-sector, boards and directors, a significant number of people are hired not because of their expertise, or qualification, but simply because of the people they know. If I've spent the last 20 years working my way up to a senior level in one of the Big Four and I go work for a management consultancy firm, they don't care whether or not I'm more qualified or experienced than the next person- they care that I've spent the last two decades marking the financial homework of all their prospective clients, having beers and playing golf with their MD's, and the like.

I don't think this is necessary gender-exclusionary by design- more of a hereditary hangover of the fact that 90% of large organisations' boards are dominated by middle-aged white men. At this point I suspect you're failing to disambiguate reality- that the majority of the political, sociological and economic hierarchy is dominated by men- from the notion, to paraphrase Fonz, that men have voluntarily and wilfully organised themselves in a way designed to exclusively deny women socioeconomic power. The former is categorical fact; the latter is what you- falsely- appear to assume that feminists believe based on your comments so far. The fact you've "never" seen feminists make economically focused arguments suggests to me that you're arguing from a pigeon-holed misrepresentation; a global straw man in which you selectively ignore all of the discourse that doesn't correlate with your interpretation of what "feminism" constitutes whilst simultaneously pretending fringe views are actually the consensus.

3 hours ago, Eutyphro said:

I wouldn't deny forms of patriarchy exist, and likely have always existed. I'd disagree with the part that patriarchy has been instituted purposefully with the intent to oppress women and put power in the hands of men

As has already been explain to you, so would most self-identifying "feminists". The notion that men deliberately conspire to oppress and denigrate women is not really one which appears anywhere in mainstream political discourse; that doesn't preclude the existence of a patriarchal system in which men- specifically, white middle- and upper-class men, hold the majority of social, economic and political power. Intent is, effectively, irrelevant.

3 hours ago, Eutyphro said:

Many feminists, Gloria Steinem for intance...consider boys to be defected girls

Sorry, what? On what grounds are you making this assertion?!

3 hours ago, Eutyphro said:

Even if not explicit, feminism is almost always premised on feminine superiority.

I think this says more about your attitudes to a particular fringe subset of feminism than it does about the broad diaspora of people identifying as feminist, mainstream and popular opinion, or to be franky basically anything else regarding the subject.